ummm.. holy carp. This is a sure a lot of products and many of these names have subsidiaries (like Kraft and Proctor and Gamble). Coke AND Pepsi! No way. haha.

Actually I don't know much about Monsanto, just that it is a giant monopolizing company that is into GMOs I think. Is there more to it than that that - ie the grim reaper? I grew up with and use many of these 'brands'. How would I know that whatever I switched to wasn't bad too?

If it's important to you, you'll find a way. If it isn't, you'll find an excuse.

I read something a couple years back that Monsanto was sueing farmers who refused to use their seeds to plant their crops. The way I understood it, they sued the farmers because they claimed the pollen from their crops blew by air over into Monsanto seed crops thus causing a problem for the Monsanto crops. It sounded like a crazy bogus thing for Monsanto to do, I assume it was true. But I never heard how the it all turned out in court.

I believe Monsanto(and possibly others) want control over all seeds and eventually do not want any heirloom or non-hybrid seeds to be available to anyone. The seeds from plants that come from hybrid plants will not usually produce. It is hard to find non-hybrid broccoli seeds, so I tried collecting and planting the seeds from a hybrid plant, the seeds did germinate and the plants grew, but none of them ever produced a head of broccoli.

The PhytoAthlete wrote:I read something a couple years back that Monsanto was sueing farmers who refused to use their seeds to plant their crops. The way I understood it, they sued the farmers because they claimed the pollen from their crops blew by air over into Monsanto seed crops thus causing a problem for the Monsanto crops. It sounded like a crazy bogus thing for Monsanto to do, I assume it was true. But I never heard how the it all turned out in court.

I don't remember this, but something similar. Monsanto's GMO seeds blow or are brought by birds onto neighboring farmers' lands. Monsanto then sues those farmers for patent infringement. Historically, they have been successful with this tactic.

blabbate wrote:I don't remember this, but something similar. Monsanto's GMO seeds blow or are brought by birds onto neighboring farmers' lands. Monsanto then sues those farmers for patent infringement. Historically, they have been successful with this tactic.

Ok, maybe that is what it was, for patent infringement. Regardless, I don't know how they can sue someone for something the wind or birds done and be successful, but evidently they do.

blabbate wrote:I don't remember this, but something similar. Monsanto's GMO seeds blow or are brought by birds onto neighboring farmers' lands. Monsanto then sues those farmers for patent infringement. Historically, they have been successful with this tactic.

Ok, maybe that is what it was, for patent infringement. Regardless, I don't know how they can sue someone for something the wind or birds done and be successful, but evidently they do.

Patent infringement doesn't need to be willful or deliberate. Growing those seeds is infringement whether the farmers knew they were Monsanto's or not. Willful violation just allows for punitive damages.

I expect there were questions about whether Monsanto was partially responsible, whether trying to find and separate the seeds would be an undue burden on the farmers, whether some degree of natural dispersion could reasonable be expected, etc. A lot of it has probably been covered under some weird farming-oriented case law.

I can't remember what it was called, but I watched a documentary about farming and the farmers who worked for Monsanto tried to save seeds, which is a time honored skill in farming/gardening, and were pressured not to so they had to spend far more money buying new seeds every planting season. I don't remember if they were actually sued or not.

Adena wrote:I can't remember what it was called, but I watched a documentary about farming and the farmers who worked for Monsanto tried to save seeds, which is a time honored skill in farming/gardening, and were pressured not to so they had to spend far more money buying new seeds every planting season. I don't remember if they were actually sued or not.

Last night I attended an author discussion with award winning journalist Fran Hawthorne, about her newest book Ethical Chic: The inside story of the companies we think we love. It was very interesting and I am definitely going to read the book. She basically investigates 6 large companies that have a reputation for being ethical and she dissects every aspect from political contribution, stance on human rights, working conditions, environmental impact, quality of products used and packaging, effects on animals, the whole gambit. Thought it would be interesting to some of you, particularly since the monsanto discussion brings up the question of how to know which companies to use/trust.

Thankfully I use NONE of those brands. I do have to finish off my stocked up cans of Hunt's tomato sauce but plan on going different when that's exhausted. I'm finally off their ketchup for good, thanks to the tomato sauce.

Baby steps!

As if being "genetic engineers" weren't bad enough, I think the worst thing that did was take advantage of the Haiti crisis after that earthquake. They loaned many of the farmers "their" corn to grow, only to find out that the corn didn't reproduce and if they could get anything out of them they'd be sued by Monsanto for not buying new. They also had to buy the weed killer that is owned by ...*drumroll*...Monsanto.